RE: [INTERFACES] Updated IDL with considerations for COSS

> In the future, we will want to implement an Interface Repository to map
> the PostgreSQL type tables to CORBA IDL.  Since that involves an
> indeterminate
> number of user-defined types, I recommend carving out namespace for that
> purpose at the beginning, e.g.:
>
>      typedef short pgtype_int2;
>      typedef long pgtype_int4;

Use of _ is discouraged since in the IDL-to-C mapping _ replaces ::. However
we can do:

module PostgreSQL { // Note we already separate our namespace
  module Types {
    typedef short int2;
    typedef short int4;
    // etc.
  }

// Stuff

}

>
> >    struct int8type {
> >        long lsw;
> >        long msw;
> >    };
>
> I would recommend that fixed-length PostgreSQL types be defined as little-
> endian arrays of long or octet type, whichever is appropriate.  E.g.:
>
>      typedef long pgtype_int8[2];
>      typedef long pgtype_int28[4];
>      typedef octet pgtype_macaddr[6];
>      typedef octet pgtype_filename[256];
>
> Etc.  It's more orthogonal that way.  But again, if prevailing practice is
> something else, we should look closely at that.  Sign extension of multi-
> long integral types is another problem that someone has presumably already
> solved for us.

No, you're quite right... I did most of my study of the CORBA 2.2 spec at
1am... IDL modified.

Taral

P.S. Would it be possible to make a pgsql/src/corba module and let me check
this IDL file into it? That way I don't have to keep reposting it.